Dutch_12078 wrote:
rgatijnet1 wrote:
The Grand Jury determined that he was negligent and should be punished. Now, a court trial and a jury will examine the facts and assess an appropriate punishment if he is found guilty. That is the way our judicial system works. It is not punishment for the sake of punishment. It is punishment for committing a crime, if he is found guilty of reckless homicide, a felony.
A grand jury only determines whether or not they agree there is sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment. They do not determine guilt or negligence. That job belongs to a judge or jury that sees all of the evidence, not just the limited evidence presented by the prosecutor to secure the indictment.
That is pretty much exactly what I said. The Grand Jury does determine there is sufficient evidence/guilt for a trial and they determined that there was a sufficient amount of negligence on the driver's part to go before a judge and jury to decide his guilt and punishment.
If the Grand Jury determined that he was not negligent, in other words, completely innocent, they would not have returned an indictment of reckless homicide, of which the prosecution feels they can get a conviction. The fact that they are going for reckless homicide, instead of a lessor offense, indicates that they had quite a bit of evidence pointing to his guilt.
The legal cost to defend this charge will be enormous.
